Talk:Baton (law enforcement)

The section on the end about blows to noncritical areas causing possible death seems both redundant and is poorly written.

Tools?

Is there a reason why this article refers to pepper spray, Tasers, and batons as "tools" instead of weapons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.36.20 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• A weapon can be a tool used by certain people to do their job. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• • • A "weapon" is a type of tool, in particular a tool used to inflict pain, ijure, or cause death.

Probably because calling it a weapon gives it a negative connotation. In much the same way that 'police force' sounds passive aggressive, whereas 'police service' simply sounds passive neutral. It's more of a deterrent in application anyway, whereas weapons intend to harm or outright kill with minimal effort. - NemFX (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section

Rapid rotation baton

Rapid rotation baton

Rapid rotation batons focus on handle characteristics that permit rapid and fluid grip changes as well as incorporating an additional hand protector and "rotator" to a normal tonfa in the form of a "cross-guard". It is purportedly effective as an extreme close quarter baton against grips, grabs, body holds and ground defense. It has recently been picked up by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for maximum custody use.

Roy Bedard, a Tallahassee Police officer, designed the RRB in 1995 due to his belief in that the current baton being offered was ineffective. The telescopic baton, usually known as the ASP baton, had a tendancy to collapse upon impact, and did not provide the user with a defensive position. The RRB is used by many different agencies, primarily for agencies who use community policing, due to the RRB's non-threatening carry position.

This section was removed because of notability issues: 12k on a google search, but 5 pages deep nothing but a couple forum posts, press releases from the manufacturer and a lot of stores selling it, or just links to the company's website. Certainly nothing to suggest actual usage numbers.

--98.224.250.238 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Removed Section

Cuffing baton

Cuffing baton (Apprehender CB-01)

A cuffing baton marries a baton design and an integrated handcuff. The baton itself is reminiscent of the steering wheel locking device commonly known as "the Club" - it has a long straight section and a "y-shaped" yoke at the other end. The yoke includes a triggered handcuff that can be remotely unlocked.

Notability issues here: no independent (non-press release) verification of Cuffing Baton's popularity, use, or innovative nature. --98.224.250.238 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Expandable-Baton: Interesting Legal Paradox

While illegal for civilians in California (as far as I know. I don't know CA law very well), I don't know if they're illegal in many other American states. They are not illegal in Maryland, for example, due to (among other factors) an interesting paradox: If the law were to rule them a "deadly weapon" explicitly, it would cause liability issues for police officers. While in reality not intending to be deadly, every use of the baton by a police officer would automatically qualify as "deadly force," with all the mess that comes with it. I don't know about other states though. I was intended to work that section to be a bit more balanced across the United States.Legitimus (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Having worked as a police officer before, this is inaccurate from our training doctrine. A baton (of any sort, fixed, expandable etc) was a hard intermediate weapon, just below deadly force on our scale It was only classed as "deadly force" if it was used on the head of a subject. I've seen several training doctrines that place it as less than deadly force, such as the ASP training course, PPCT course, but as I have hard copies of these resources, I can't link to an example until I find something similar. Paladin656 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad to have your perspective on this as a officer. Just a clarification though: I was referring to civilian carry for self-defense purposes. And I was referring to statutory criminal law, rather than police procedure manuals. The wrinkle here is that concealed weapon possession laws with regards to civilians are often approaching strict-liability, meaning that the actual usage in the eyes of the courts means nothing, mere possession is the crime. Of course many jurisdictions use different language to describe weapons that are unlawful to carry.

I misunderstood the comment then, I thought we were speaking strictly in the use of police officers. Civilian possession varies in the US probably by state law in most areas. Where I'm at, you can get a permit for one, such as through a security guard training program. Paladin656 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting hypothetical, if batons are to be regarded as just below deadly force, what happens if a criminal is armed with one? Is deadly force to subdue him/her justifiable?Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That exact question has come up in training that I've attended. It would depend on the full scope of the circumstances. Police are trained to use a baton in a non lethal way, striking in a way to disable or minimize a threat rather than kill. In the hands of an untrained person, well, think of someone holding a metal baseball bat. They -can- kill you with it. Is that they're intent? How close is backup? How many of them are there, versus how many of you? It's not really a black or white, in some circumstances, yes, deadly force can be justified, in others no. Paladin656 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)